Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 7/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Sex and the Sex drive
compmage
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 31 of 36 (9657)
05-15-2002 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Peter
05-14-2002 9:44 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Peter:

PS [by edit]:: This would also put a dent in YEC aging of the
universe because there is no time span defined between creating
the human race and creating Adam in eden.

It also would put a huge dent into original sin.
------------------
compmage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Peter, posted 05-14-2002 9:44 AM Peter has not replied

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 4722 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 32 of 36 (9661)
05-15-2002 3:00 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Peter
05-14-2002 9:44 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Peter:
I think that Adam and Eve were NOT the first humans created.
In Genesis 1 God creates the whole world (and universe) and populates
it.
Then in chapter 2 he creates Eden, puts his special Adam in it,
and calls forth all manner of useful animals to live in
eden and for Adam to have dominion over. Eve follows later.

6TH DAY: God brought the animals to Adam, after he made them.
‘Intelligent’ Adam named them all in a mere portion of that day, several thousands of animals and birds could have been named in several hours at most. (It is not said he named any ‘creeping’ things.)
God then created Eve, surgically from Adam, later that day.
There are no real contradictions between Genesis 1 and 2, albeit the 2 chapters are from different perspectives, ‘spiritually’ speaking. Chapter 1 gives the 7 day reality per se. Chapter 2 explains other abstracts, man the creature’s ‘loneliness’, ‘marriage’-bonding, etc.
It would not become ecstatically ‘good’ until the ‘wife’-mechanism was reflected, then resolved later that day, i.e., amidst the ‘naming of the animals’. (Note the exclamation of Adam as he names her ‘woman’)
Also, the command was future tense, in chapter 1, about being fruitful and multiplying, replenishing, etc. Chapter 2 invokes the primal mechanism of the reproduction process spoken in Chapter 1.
Also:
For the human gene-pool to be ‘inherent’ in Adam, i.e., with all its genetic variability (and so-called ‘mutation-spots’, etc.), for future cultural races (etc.),
does not seem to violate creationist nor mutationalistic logic (to my understanding).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Peter, posted 05-14-2002 9:44 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Philip, posted 05-15-2002 3:12 AM Philip has not replied
 Message 35 by Peter, posted 05-15-2002 11:34 AM Philip has replied

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 4722 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 33 of 36 (9662)
05-15-2002 3:12 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Philip
05-15-2002 3:00 AM


Note: Abraham married his half-sister. Thus, Cain's marriage was nothing strange, biblically.
Such 'incest' was not much a problem in those days, given the exceeding and abundant 'excellence' of the gene-pool in "Adam and Eve", and in their numerous children.
The mutationalist may respond? "No devolvement!" But that is arbitrary, is it not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Philip, posted 05-15-2002 3:00 AM Philip has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by mark24, posted 05-15-2002 5:04 AM Philip has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 34 of 36 (9667)
05-15-2002 5:04 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Philip
05-15-2002 3:12 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Philip:
Note: Abraham married his half-sister. Thus, Cain's marriage was nothing strange, biblically.
Such 'incest' was not much a problem in those days, given the exceeding and abundant 'excellence' of the gene-pool in "Adam and Eve", and in their numerous children.
The mutationalist may respond? "No devolvement!" But that is arbitrary, is it not?

If you can prove that Abraham married his half sister, to the same standards that you require of the ToE.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Philip, posted 05-15-2002 3:12 AM Philip has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 35 of 36 (9678)
05-15-2002 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Philip
05-15-2002 3:00 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Philip:

6TH DAY: God brought the animals to Adam, after he made them.
‘Intelligent’ Adam named them all in a mere portion of that day, several thousands of animals and birds could have been named in several hours at most. (It is not said he named any ‘creeping’ things.)
God then created Eve, surgically from Adam, later that day.
There are no real contradictions between Genesis 1 and 2, albeit the 2 chapters are from different perspectives, ‘spiritually’ speaking. Chapter 1 gives the 7 day reality per se. Chapter 2 explains other abstracts, man the creature’s ‘loneliness’, ‘marriage’-bonding, etc.
It would not become ecstatically ‘good’ until the ‘wife’-mechanism was reflected, then resolved later that day, i.e., amidst the ‘naming of the animals’. (Note the exclamation of Adam as he names her ‘woman’)
Also, the command was future tense, in chapter 1, about being fruitful and multiplying, replenishing, etc. Chapter 2 invokes the primal mechanism of the reproduction process spoken in Chapter 1.
Also:
For the human gene-pool to be ‘inherent’ in Adam, i.e., with all its genetic variability (and so-called ‘mutation-spots’, etc.), for future cultural races (etc.),
does not seem to violate creationist nor mutationalistic logic (to my understanding).

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of
God created he him; male and female created he them.
Gen 1:28:: And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be
fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it:
and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the
fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth
upon the earth.
No mention of Adam here (which is what I was getting at).
Gen 2:18:; And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast
of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought [them]
unto Adam to see what he would call them: and
whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that [was]
the name thereof.
In chapter two God makes all the beasts of the field for Adam,
after Adam is already there.
No mention of timescales.
If you view chapters 1 and 2 to relate the SAME story, then they
ARE contradictory ... or at least not entirely compatible.
Also in Gen Ch.2 It says that on the seventh day God admired
his work, but he hadn't made it rain, and there was no man
to till the fields.
That's AFTER day six when 'male and female created he them.'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Philip, posted 05-15-2002 3:00 AM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Philip, posted 05-16-2002 4:42 AM Peter has not replied

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 4722 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 36 of 36 (9779)
05-16-2002 4:42 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Peter
05-15-2002 11:34 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Peter:
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of
God created he him; male and female created he them.
No mention of Adam here (which is what I was getting at).

--(I do not wish to refute your scheme as it supports your faith)
--Note ‘Adam’ actually means (first) ‘man’ (Strong’s Lexicon).
quote:
Originally posted by Peter:
Gen 2:18:; And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast
of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought [them]
unto Adam

--Non-dogmatically, I no see no discrepancy: Merely a different complementary viewpoint of the 6th day of creation (more or less), beginning specifically at Gen 2.4.
--The creation is recapitulated in necessarily ‘surreal’ chronology with a ‘sweeping’ perspective of the LORD God (vs. the God-head, God in ch 1) focusing on his Man. The Logos-Word (dynamic ID information) of Gen 1 now must ‘make’ ‘special’ ‘events’, those observed in ch. 2. Time appears distorted and dilated with numerous observed events occurring around Adam.
--Note the ‘relativistic’ statement: every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. A reference to the 3rd day Logos of all mature botany and micro-biology before as yet they were even visible might be construed.
--This ‘back-to-the-future’ reference semantically supports a multi-tiered IC model of ‘special creation’ as well. This, perhaps, seems no more ‘surreal’ than those relativistic phenomena in physics.
quote:
Originally posted by Peter:
In chapter two God makes all the beasts of the field for Adam,
after Adam is already there.
No mention of timescales.

--Again, ch 2’s perspective is recapped in relativistic multi-tiered chronology that complements the simple chronology of ch. 1.
--Yes, it appears that the ‘animation’ (making) of the animals -- already ‘created’ in their ‘mature’ state(s), but not yet ‘alive’, etc. -- may have taken place AFTER Adam.
Just as you and I were created in the dust earth of Adam’s reproductive potential, BEFORE you and I were yet visible.
Your observation is excellent, Peter, not ‘doting’. Surely you consistently ‘fit’ the Bible into your faith scheme, somehow?
quote:
Originally posted by Peter:
If you view chapters 1 and 2 to relate the SAME story, then they
ARE contradictory ... or at least not entirely compatible.

--They seem both compatible and complementary to one another. They conjoin well at Gen 2.4 (not 2.1)
quote:
Originally posted by Peter:
Also in Gen Ch.2 It says that on the seventh day God admired
his work, but he hadn't made it rain, and there was no man
to till the fields.
That's AFTER day six when 'male and female created he them.'

--They conjoin well at Gen 2.4 and not 2.1. God’s 7th day occurs without end, both before and after Genesis 2.4 events. Chapter 2.4, and much of the rest of human history, is greatly a 'cursed'/'redeeming' ‘parenthetical’ ID within the Genesis '7-day' biblical framework.
--In sum:
I can not dogmatically refute your scheme.
I merely find it more scriptural, rational, and believable that Gen ch 2 is an ‘outworking’ of the original creation-logos of Gen ch 1.
[This message has been edited by Philip, 05-16-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Peter, posted 05-15-2002 11:34 AM Peter has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024